slaves is holden in this country. I would not, if I could, alarm one honest fear for the security of this species of property. Least of all would 1-Oh no, no, I would notwithout necessity, breathe too roughly upon that spirit of mutual confidence and affection which I believe to be the bond of our political union, in the fear that bond might be weakened by it.

[FEB. 7, 1828.

its full meaning, and without any qualification, as much so as any other species of property whatsoever.

I think the gentleman [Mr. MINER] has been peculiarly unfortunate in his references to authority: for all those to which he has referred us go to establish the direct contrary to the position taken by him. He says, "that the laws of nations declare that slaves form part of a Government, and, as such, the Government can use them as soldiers in their armies." To support this monstrous principle, he has read Vattel, p. 294: and what does he say upon this subject? Why, the very reverse of the assertion of the gentleman. It is laid down by that able writer, that the services of "all free citizens" of a Government can be commanded to serve in the armies of that Government, or for the general good. The principle laid down by Vattel I most wil lingly yield to. But, really, I am at a loss to conjecture what could have been the train of reasoning in the gentleman's mind, when he referred to this authority, so conclusive against his assertions. Will he contend that slaves are "free citizens ?" or does he mean to be understood as saying that slaves, as such, form a part of our Government, and, in this country, are to be regard. ed as "free citizens" are in other countries? The gen tleman went on to observe, that in speaking of those who were to compose the armies of every country or Government, Vattel used the name of persons, and he (no doubt happily to his own mind) contended that, under that denomination, (persons,) he included slaves. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, that any gentleman' upon this floor would resort to such reasoning or can suppose that this enlightened body, or the American Nation, could be misled by such a forced construction? I do not think that the gentleman is entitled even to the claim of ingenuity for this attempt. It is too easily detected. I will not insult the understanding of this House, by showing to them that slaves form no part of our Govern ment; and that, when Vattel speaks of persons, he did it, in every case referred to, as persons forming the "free citizens" of the government under which they live. He so expressly declares it. But, Mr. Speaker, I will not consent to debate this argument of the gentleman. I do not believe that such opinions will ever be generally entertained in this House. If, unfortunately for the country, they should be, it is not by standing here and coolly exposing their fallacy that they will be met. No sir; should that time ever arrive, (which Heaven avert !) I would say as the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. DRAYTON than whom there is not a more virtuous or patriotic man in the nation-declared a few days since, when discussing this very subject: The Representatives from the Southern States will have no business here: their seats would not be worth retaining-as the only means by which they could serve their constituents would be to return to them, and, by their sides, meet such arguments in the only way they ought to be met.

Mr. BRENT rose, and said, that he felt himself forced into the discussion, from the situation in which he stood as a Representative from a slave-holding State. He regretted that this subject had again been introduced in a manner to call forth a debate. He did hope that, after the great length of time which it had already occupied, the question would have been taken, and no farther discussion indulged in. But the extraordinary doctrines advanced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MINER] and the reasons given by another gentleman, [Mr. BARNARD] from New York, compelled him, in the discharge of his duty, to answer these gentlemen; and, in doing so, he should detain the House but a very short time. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MINER] im plored us "not to urge this question," and assured us that it was not "his intention to interfere with the rights of the slave-holding States." Who urged this question? Was it any gentleman from the South? Sir, this language is calculated to urge the gentlemen from the Southern States to indulge in that course so much deprecated by that gentleman. He tells us that he does not intend to interfere with the rights of the slave-holding States," and, at the same moment, he asserts-what no man has ever done before him-that "the Government of the U. States has a right to enlist our slaves, and to make soldiers of them, the same as if they were free white citizens, and without giving the master any compensation for their services." The gentleman [Mr. MINER] asserts this, and then calls upon us not to be excited, and declares that he does not wish to interfere with our rights to our slaves." I cannot listen to such doctrines and such inconsistency in gentlemen, without expressing my abhorrence of them, if no more. I am pleased to think that the gentleman stands alone in his opinions up. on this subject. I do not believe that another individual in the nation would advocate such a doctrine. Is the gentleman aware to what such opinions would lead us? she prepared for the consequences which would result from such sentiments? If he has reflected upon those consequences, and blindly rushes on, I envy not his feelings. But how does he form his opinion, and from what source does he derive his reasons? He has referred us to the Constitution of the United States-and for what? To show that, in speaking of slaves, they were called persons in some parts of the Constitution; and he then says surely persons are not property. Ah, sir! where does he find this distinction? Had he shown us that persons could not be property by the words of the Constitution, he might maintain, with some plausibility, the ground he has taken. The very reverse of the gentle- The same gentleman asks, why is it that similar claims man's idea is the fact. Slaves are property because they have been rejected ever since the foundation of the Goare persons: for no slavery can exist but of persons. Ivernment? If such be the case, I have never been able to will ask the gentleman where he can find any thing in meet with such cases in any researches which I have made. the Constitution or laws, which forbids the making of The cases referred to by gentlemen some days ago in persons property. I challenge the production of any such debate, are not similar to the present in any one feature. prohibition, derived from any code of laws in the world, This is the first time that such a case has ever been prewhere slavery ever existed. I will ask what is proper-sented to Congress, and acted upon. At the last session ty? It is what the law declares to be such. The gentleman admitted, in the course of his argument, that slaves were property, but qualified property. There is no such distinction made in the laws of this or any other country. He cannot point to any such distinction; it exists alone in the imagination. I beg gentlemen to read the Constitution and the laws of our country on this subject, and they will find that slaves have always been recognized as property under our Government, in

of Congress a similar case was presented in the name of L'Arche, but not definitively acted upon, but so far as it was, the expression of an opinion was favorable. When gentlemen refer to precedents they ought to compare them with the case under consideration, and not to take for granted that which does not exist.

It has also been observed, that, in rejecting this bill, "no national question is settled." I think differently, as the question is now presented. Had gentlemen content.

FEB. 7. 1828.]

Case of Marigny D'Auterive.

[H. or R.

[Here Mr. BARNARD asked and obtained leave of Mr. BRENT to explain. He had not said that slaves were property in an unqualified sense, but that they were always property, and always men, and that they were embraced in the fifth amendment of the Constitution only so far as they were property.]

ed themselves with the facts in the case, and examined and such property, too, as comes within the meaning of it alone upon its merits, without going aside for the pur- that amendment in the Constitution, which sys, "nor pose of asserting to the world that our slaves could be shall private property be taken for public use, wout taken from us by the Government, and employed in the just compensation," they ought not to be paid for, army, without compensation to the master, it might cause their slavery does not divest them of the charachave been decided without settling any national questers of men; and being men, the master cannot ask for tion; but, as it is, with these declarations to go forth to pay for their services rendered to the Government. This the nation, as reasons for opposing the bill, I say that a really is a refined distinction, and one that I can scarcely national question, of great importance to this Union, is comprehend. It may be creditable to the humane and embraced in the discussion which has taken place-nay, benevolent feelings of the gentleman, but certainly is one that is of vital existence to the Southern States. contrary to the law and the Constitution, and the admisHow is it possible for the honorable gentleman [Mr. Mi sions he made. The one is inconsistent and irreconcileaNER] to say, that "no national question is to be settled?" ble with the other. Mr. Speaker, it is a question which interests the whole Union; and whenever it is advocated upon the principles of that gentleman, it will be found to be one that will endanger every thing we hold dear under our happy Government. I do not believe that we will ever experience any injury from such doctrines: for I think I do justice, not only to the honorable colleagues of the gen Mr. BRENT continued. I do not see that the explana. tleman from Pennsylvania, but to every honorable gen- tion of my honorable friend corrects what I stated in tleman upon this floor from the non-slave holding States, any respect. I think he goes further than I thought he when I declare, that I consider the gentleman [Mr. Mr- did. He now says, and admits, that slaves are always XER] as the only advocate of such dangerous doctrines.property, and always men. How can we understand All other gentlemen from the Northern or non-slave this admission in any other way than in that which gives holding States have admitted that our slaves were pro- it a meaning If slaves be always property, and as he perty, and have only contended that they either were admits that they are embraced in the fifth amendment, not such property as ought to be impressed, or that, in so far as they are property, and that amendment declares, this case, the evidence did not support the claim. Some that no "property shall be taken for public use, without have also contended that the master ought not to con- just compensation," most certainly, if the slave, in this tract for the service of his slave in the army, so as to re- case, was "taken for public use," the Government is quire compensation, because the slave has life, and no bound, in the words of the Constitution, from the admis master can expose the life of his slave for pecuniary com- sion of the gentleman, to make D'Auterive "just com pensation, and if he does, he ought not to be paid, for pensation." But, says the gentleman, although the slave the act was cruel and inhuman. In this respect, they was property, in the meaning of the Constitution, he was say, slave property differs froin other kind of personal still “a man,” and as such, the word "property" in the property. These, and similar arguments, have been Constitution must be qualified. Where is such construcadvanced against the present claim, but not one gentle- tion to the Constitution to be found? Does the Consti man has yet asserted that "slaves are not property." tution contain any such qualification? It does not; it All admit it; and so does the gentleman from Pennsyl. embraces all kinds of property. The words of the Convania; but he qualifies his admission, and concludes by stitution are," nor shall private property be taken," &c. advancing the extraordinary doctrine I have noticed. These words embrace every description of property, Happily for the Southern States-happily for the Union, whether that property consists of men, or of horses, or he stands alone the advocate of such principles. any thing else. There is no distinction, no qualification; and in admitting what the gentleman did, that slaves are property, he has admitted all we ask; and his opposition to the bill, for the reason assigned, rather partakes of a distinction too refined to weigh down the positive declarations of the Constitution, and his own admissions as to its effects, and as to the laws which make property of slaves.

Before I take my seat, I will ask the indulgence of the House for a short time, to make a few observations in reply to the gentleman from New York [Mr. BARNARD.] From the manner in which that gentleman spoke, I feel persuaded he delivered the real convictions of his mind; and although I cannot assent to his reasonings or conclusions, it is but just to say, that his remarks, and the mild and eloquent manner in which he expressed them, entitle him to the respect of every member in this House. As to the ability with which he spoke, the great and pleasing attention with which he was listened to, is the strongest proof. I am glad to find that he does not agree with the gentleman [Mr. MINER] from Pennsylvania, and that he has taken, in the course of his remarks, an opportunity to express his dissent to the doctrines of that gentleman.

I hope my friend from New York [Mr. BARNARD] will not apply any remark made by me as intended to wound his feelings. I trust he is satisfied that no gentleman upon this floor has a higher respect for him than I have. But he must allow me, in the most friendly manner, to remark, that I think he has been very unfortunate in the positions he has taken. He says, "that property is a word of familiar import, and when pronounced, it is ge nerally understood what is meant-as, if you ask a child In the beginning of the remarks of the gentleman [Mr. what is property? his reply would be, My book, or toy, BARNARD] from New York, he admits that "slaves are or such things as are familiar to all;" and he concludes property, within the meaning of the fifth amendment to from this, that the meaning of property is to be confinthe Constitution of the United States;" and, also, that ed to such things as are familiar to our early senses. Mr. "slaves are property, because the law makes them so." Speaker, I admit the correctness of this as a general reHaving made these two admissions, I supposed he would mark; and, according to this definition of property, I yield the question, and admit that, as property, slaves contend that slaves are so to be regarded-as much so ought to be paid for, inasmuch as the fifth amendment to as the book, toy, &c. The familiar import of a word is the Constitution declares, “nor shall private property understood in different ways in different countries. In be taken for public use, without just compensation." the non-slave holding States, where the child knows noSuch, indeed, appears to me to be the inevitable conse- thing of slavery, or has scarcely heard its name, the anquence of his admissions; but it is strangely contended swer to an inquiry, as to what constituted property, would by the gentleman, that, although slaves are property, be as the gentleman has stated; but, in a slave-holding

State, the answer would be very different. The first and most early impression, as to property, made upon the ming of a Southern child, is, that the nurse with whom plays, and who follows his little footsteps, and teaches him to walk and to talk, is his property; and, ask the child of a Southern Planter what property he owns, his answer, nine times out of ten, would be, the name of his nurse-so that this remark of the gentleman is as applicable to slave property as to any other.

[FEB. 7, 1828.

been changed by the Legislature, and punishments are inflicted in certain events, for injuries done to a slavebut this is altogether a State business, and has nothing to do with the general principle as laid down by the gentleman. They are entirely and most grossly mistaker.

The gentleman [Mr. BARNARD] in his concluding remarks, observed, that "the law, like the grave, is a leveller, and makes no distinction between the master and the slave as to life, and that the property of the master But, says the gentleman, [Mr. BARNARD] slaves are in his slave, is subject to the laws of humanity." Mr. not property, like an ox or horse, because they are rea- Speaker, if the gentleman means to say by this, that, in sonable beings, and if you injure their persons you are the slave-holding States, the municipal or State regulamade to answer for it. This is most extraordinary doc tions protect the life of the slave at the present time trine-and it is not the first time, in this debate, I have against the unjustifiable taking of it by the master, he is heard it urged; and, what astonishes me most, is, that correct; but such internal regulations of each State it should have been urged by gentlemen whose legal ac. have nothing to do with the general question as connectquirements ought to inform them better. It was but ed with the Federal Government. But, even by the State the other day, that an honorable gentleman from Rhode laws, the slave is not placed upon an equality with his Island, [Mr. BURGES] stated the same thing, and now it master, as to life; for, if the slave resists or raises his hand is reiterated by the gentleman from New York. I can- to his master, or a free white person, in some of the not believe that these gentlemen have examined the law States, they have the right to take his life; nor has the upon these subjects; if they had, they must have form- slave the right to defend himself against his master; but, ed a very different opinion. Is it possible that gentle should the master kill him without good cause, he is punmen will contend in this House, that slaves cannot be ished in some States by death, in others by confinement. property, because they are "reasonable beings," and, In no State is "the law a leveller between the master and in that respect, they differ from a horse or ox? Is there the slave." God forbid that I should advocate any prinany law in our country, which declares that "reasonable ciple opposed to the feelings of humanity; but, certainly, beings" cannot be reduced to a state of slavery, and, as sir, in a Government of laws, like ours, there are no other such, become property? There is not. But, in the laws than those derived from our happy Constitution, and case of the slave of our country, he is not, he cannot, the powers growing out of it. I know of no laws of hu be regarded as a "reasonable being." In viewing the manity recognized by our Government, like those alludslave we must speak of him here in a legal, constitution-ed to by the gentleman from New York. But, Mr. Speakal, and political point of view-we have nothing to do er, we have laws implanted in our bosoms, and feelings, with his natural state. I say, without fear of contradic- too, which rule us in our conduct towards that class of tion, that, in the eye of the law and the Constitution, the property. If the gentlemen would give themselves the slave is not a reasonable being. He is, legally and consti- trouble to visit the slave-holding States," and to see tutionally speaking, no more a "reasonable being," than our slaves, and compare their condition and comforts with is a horse or the table which stands before me. those of the poorer and laboring classes of free persons in their own States, I am certain it would remove, in a great measure, that sympathy which at present so often and so glowingly depicts their imaginary sufferings. It is because they are strangers to us and to our feelings, and conduct towards our slaves, that we are so constantly the theme of their invective.

The slave is unknown to the law or the constitution, except as the property of the master. In that respect, he stands upon an equality with any other property, and so far as the Government of the United States is concern ed, he has no legal or political protection. The gentle man says, if we injure the persons of slaves, we are made to answer for it. But to whom are we made to answer and by what laws? Not to this nation or to this Federal Government, nor can they point to any thing in the laws or constitution of the United States, to make us responsible. No, Mr. Speaker, as to this Government and its laws, we are not responsible for any injury done to a slave-so far as regards this Government, we are complete masters of their persons and their lives: whenever the master is restrained from injuring his slave in any manner, it is by the statutory provisions of his own State, and by no other power. As the laws of all nations first stood, the master could take the life of his slave at his pleasure; such was the law in every part of this country, where slavery was recognized, until altered by municipal regulations. In Louisiana, where the Civil law was in force until altered for the special government of the country, by a municipal regulation, the master could inflict death or any other injury upon his slave. What rights has the slave, and what redress for injury? I say none; as to rights, he is, as if he were not in existence; and as to redress, where has he any? He can own no property; if he acquire any it belongs to his master, and if he be beaten and ill-treated, he cannot recover damages for the injury any more than a horse can. In both cases the master must bring his action for damages, and in both cases, he recovers by the same process and the same principles of law; such is the case in Louisiana; no proceeding can be had in the name of the State for an assault and battery, &c. In some of the slave-holding States, the law has

I ask pardon of the House for having occupied so much more time than I intended; but I could not refrain from saying what I did in reply to the two gentlemen who preceded me. I hope this bill will pass. The case is a clear one. It is proven by the testimony accompaying the report of the Committee, that the slave was impressed into the service of the United States, by the order of the Commanding General, and whilst in that service he was disabled. The extent of the injury is also proven and estimated, and the owner asks you to pay him the damages done to his slave. It is admitted that "slaves are property," and the Constitution declares that a "fair compensation" shall be given for all property taken for the public use. Can you refuse to pay D'Auterive for his property? I appeal to the justice and understanding of all who hear me.

Mr. TAYLOR said he rose with reluctance, at this stage of the debate, to detain the House even for a moment. At an earlier period, when the bill was in Com. mittee of the Whole, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. GURLEY] was under con sideration, he had endeavored to get the floor, for the purpose of expressing, somewhat at large, his objections to that amendment. These objections had been confirm. ed, rather than impaired, by subsequent reflections. He saw in the bill some claims of admitted justice, for which all were prepared to vote; and one item, of a character so objectionable, that, before he sat down, he should move a recommitment of the bill to the Committee of Claims,

482 [H. O

those memorials, they were induced to examine the powers vested in Congress under the present Constitution, relating to the abolition of slavery, and are clearly of opinion-First, That the General Government is ex pressly restrained from prohibiting the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, until the year 1808. Secondly, That Congress, by a fair construction of the Constitu tion, are equally restrained from interfering in the emancipation of slaves, who already are, or who may, within the period mentioned, be imported into, or born within any of the said States. Thirdly, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the internal regulations of particular States, relative to the instruction of slaves in the principles of morality and religion; to their com fortable clothing, accommodation, and subsistence; to the regulation of their marriages, and the prevention of the violation of the rights thereof, or to the separation of children from their parents; to a comfortable provision in cases of sickness, age, or infirmity; or to the have the fullest confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the Legislatures of the several States, that they will revise their laws, from time to time, when necessary, and promote the objects mentioned in the memorials, and every other measure that may tend to the happiness of the slaves."

for the purpose of having it expunged. It was not his intention to enter upon an examination of the rights of master and slave in those States where that condition of society exists. The necessity of doing so was entirely superseded by the able and conclusive argument of his honorable friend and colleague [Mr. BARNARD.] The just and liberal views of that gentleman could not fail to recommend him to the distinguished regard of this House. However some gentlemen might dissent from the conclusions to which he had arrived, all must approve his high and manly tone of feeling towards our brethren of the slave-holding States. He was happy to be assured that in this he was not mistaken. The assent [said Mr. T.] of more than one honorable member from the South, con firms my remark. After what my colleague (said Mr. T.] has expressed so well, and in a temper so coincident with my own feelings, I should have foreborne to address you on this subject, were it not to notice a remark made, not only by one, but by almost every gentleman who has advocated this claim. They have informed us that, in the slave-holding States, an opinion very generally is enter-seizure, transportation, or sale, of free negroes; but tained, that a fanatical spirit exists in the non-slave-holding States, threatening improper interference between master and slave. If such an opinion be entertained, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is most unjust to the North. No such spirit now exists; none such ever has existed in the non-slave-holding States. I do not mean to say that an individual could not be found, of whom the remark might be made with truth. Particular individuals may be met with, in the South as well as in the North, whose opinions on this subject are of the most absurd and extravagant character. But what I say is, that no man, whose opinions are entitled to respect, either in this House or out of it, believes it to be within the competency of Congress to interfere, in the States of this Union, in any manner whatever, between master and slave. This subject is not within our jurisdiction. It belongs to the States, and to them alone, to regulate this delicate and difficult matter. It was so decided by the first Congress which assembled under this Constitution, and their decision, in regard to it, has been, and now is, the established doctrine of all well-informed men in this country. The importance that has been given to this subject, not only here, but elsewhere, will plead my justification for detaining the House a few moments, in referring to the history of that decision.

On the 12th of February, 1790, a memorial from the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Sla. very, was presented to the House, and read, praying that Congress might take such measures in their wisdom, as the powers with which they were invested would authorize, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and discouraging every species of traffic in slaves. A ques. tion was made and discussed, whether the memorial should be referred to the consideration of a Committee, and was decided in the affirmative by ayes and noes-43 to 11. Congress considered it a proper occasion to quiet any alarms which might be entertained by the South, and to anounce to the whole country, in regard to this subject, its construction of the Constitution, then recently established. The memorial was referred to a Committee, all of whom, except Mr. Parker, of Virginia, were Northern men. The other members were, Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire ; Mr. Huntington, of Connecticut ; Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts; Mr. Lawrence, of New York; Mr. Sinickson, of New Jersey; and Mr. Hartley, of Pennsylvania. Other matters, in relation to the foreign slave-trade, had been referred to the same committee. The report made the 5th of March, had relation to both subjects. Permit me to read so much of it as regards the mat. ter now under consideration. The Committee reported

"That, from the nature of the matters contained in

This report having been committed to the Committee of the Whole House, after many days discussion, was finally amended to read as follows:

"That the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be prohibited by Congress, prior to the year 1808; that Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require."

Such, Mr. Speaker, then was, ever since has been, and now is, the judgment of Northern, as well as Southern men in regard to the powers of Congress on this interesting subject. In a debate in this House, some years since, relating to the country West of the Mississippi, opinions in opposition to those contained in that report, were imputed to me, and those with whom 1 acted. In behalf of them and myself the opinions imputed were promptly and indignantly disavowed and disowned, and their monstrous absurdity and injustice freely admitted. My efforts on that occasion (I fear justice will never be done by my Southern brethren to the motives which influenced them) were directed to bene fit the country West of the Mississippi, by applying to it the same glorious doctrines of the Ordinance of 1787, which, by the consent of Virginia, and on motion of a distinguished Virginian, had been applied to the country East of the Mississippi. And, although all for which we contended was not obtained, yet, the partial success which crowned our exertions has ever been considered by me the most fortunate event with which my public life has been associated. Perhaps I owe an apology to the House for even this brief reference to that subject. should not have made it, had we not been warned, at an early period of the debate, not to make this another Missouri question.

I

Mr. Speaker: Having disclaimed all right, on the part of Congress, to interfere in any manner concerning the condition of slaves in those States where slavery exists, I shall proceed, very briefly, to state the relation in which I consider them to stand towards this General Government. The Constitution every where speaks of them as per

These reports by a solemn vote of the House, were recorded on its Journal, and will stand in all time as a disclaimer of the pretensions unjustly attributed to us.-Note by Mr. T.

448 R.]

compact with a Foreign Power. " The power of claiming compensation for these injuries being taken from the States, and confided to the General Govern ment, it became its duty to do for their citizens what the States themselves would have done had not the power been taken from them. This Government claims no benefit to itself from the treaty or the compensation growing out of it. It stands in the relation of trustee merely for the persons injured, and for whose benefit alone compensation has been received.

sons, and not as property; in taking the census they are aggrieved, as a wrong-doer. I will not sanction a pracenumerated as persons; three-fifths of their number tice fraught with such fatal consequences to the peace are represented on this floor as persons: for, if there be of the Union, and the security of the Southern States. any principle at the foundation of the General Govern- But we have been told this Government has recognisment, it is this: that the representation is of persons, and ed slaves as property, by claiming and receiving com. not of property. Who ever heard of the flocks which pensation from Great Britain for the benefit of our citiwhiten the thousand hills of New England, or the ships zens, whose slaves were illegally carried away by the which crowd the busy port of New York, being repre- naval and military officers during the late war. To the sented in Congress? True, as regards this Government, argument drawn from this fact, I reply, that the Constitu they are persons without civil or political rights. They tion of the United States declares, "no State shall enter owe to it neither allegiance nor defence. Congress into any treaty:" and again, “no State, without the conmay make a soldier of every free man in the nation-sent of Congress, shall enter into any agreement or but the slave is beyond our jurisdiction. We cannot touch him. And who will contend that a military officer of the United States, deriving all his authority from Congress, can do that by arbitrary power which the President and both Houses of Congress cannot do by Jaw? The defence of this country rests securely on the stout hearts and strong arms of freemen. They are competent to its defence. Let not this honourable office be degraded by casting it upon slaves. Sir, the doc trine which I maintain is sanctioned no less by considerations of safety to the South, than of justice to the North. In regard to the latter, we say, gentlemen, you come to us and claim political power in proportion to the number of your slaves, as natural and moral persons; as human beings: we grant your request; we give to you for them, and on their account, in that character, twenty-four votes in this House, and an equal number in the election of a President of the United States. It is a great boon: it makes war or peace-it changes the policy of the Government, and establishes that as right which a majority of the freemen of the United States have voted to be wrong. We repeat, it is a great boon. But we admit it is the bargain. The Constitution has so fixed it, and we seek not its violation. But, gentlemen, when with one breath you claim, and have conceded to you, these exalted privileges, in right of these persons as human beings, as men, do not, we pray you, if, on your own frontiers, and in your own defence, one of them should happen to be employed in the military service, without our consent or approbation-do not come to us to demand money for his life, to claim payment for his blood. You, sir, sit in that chair because he is considered a man, and is enumerated as such under the Constitution and laws of the country. Do not degrade him to the condition of a brute. Do not ask money for him, when we ask none, as parents and masters, for the loss of children and apprentices.

The gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Douser] and, indeed, many others, in the course of the debate, have founded an argument in support of this claim, on the mistaken hypothesis that slaves are liable to taxation as property by the government of the United States. They may be enumerated, and three fifths of their num ber included as persons in a general capitation tax, be. cause in that proportion they are represented as persons on this floor. The same remark may be made in regard to direct taxes. These are apportioned among the States, not according to wealth, but population. States are taxed because their People are represented, and in the ratio of that representation. The argument that leads to the conclusion that slaves are considered property by the Government of the United States, because three-fifths of their number are estimated in the appor. tionment of direct taxes, will prove yet more conclusive. ly, that all free citizens are considered property, be cause five-fifths, or the whole of their number, are chus estimated for the same purpose. To such absurdities do the arguments of gentlemen lead, when they forsake the plain common sense interpretation of the Constitu tion, to indulge in metaphysical speculations. The most cursory reader of the Constitution cannot fail to observe with what caution its framers avoided the use of the words “slave” and “slavery." Every form of periphrasis was resorted to for that purpose. Their delica But, Mr. Speaker, I beg Southern gentlemen to concy on this subject is worthy of imitation. Let not gen sider of the security they are surrendering in this thrift- tlemen, after a lapse of thirteen years, during all which less contest to squeeze a few dollars from the National time every similar claim has been disallowed and rejectTreasury. They all agree, that, if the slave in questioned; let them not now press upon us the establishment was in the public service, by virtue of a contract with of new principles, as odious to us as they will prove in his master, this claim is unjust. It is supported only operation injurious to themselves. on the ground that the commanding officer had a right, and that the circumstances of the case justified his exercising it, to take him from his master, and against his will, and apply him to military purposes. If the right exist, it must necessarily be exercised at the discretion of the commanding officer. If he may impress a slave, and put him to fatigue duty in the trenches, he also, at his discretion, may put him in the ranks, and place arms in his hands to defend the fortress. If he may impress fifty slaves, for a week, what is there to prevent him from impressing five thousand for three months? I speak not of the power of States in time of war, to use these people for their own defence. That is a matter for their own consideration, of which they are competent to judge—I am not. But if a military officer of the United States has so far forgotten his duty as to impress slaves into the service, so far as my vote goes he shall stand responsible for his own act to the party

For the purpose of enabling the Committee of Claims to amend the bill by expunging the clause which was inserted on motion of the gentleman from Louisiana, I move to recommit it to that committee.

Mr. BATES, of Mass. said, he did not rise to go into a discussion of the question before the House, but merely to state the principles upon which he gave his vote against the amendment to the bill, and upon which he should give his vote against the bill itself, in its present form. And I am desirous of doing this, he remarked, because my own mind has changed during the progress of the discussion, and because I differ in opinion upon this question from some of my colleagues. Without attempting to trace to an impatient House, the process by which I have arrived at my results, or to state the authorities which the records of the House furnish, by which I can support one of them, the most material to the case in hand, I will barely state the results them.